Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is that no one put a gun to the housewives' heads and said, "Make yourself completely unable to fend for yourself should your marriage go awry."
Couples makes choices together. In the case of the 'agreement,' there was a spelled out agreement, which is what I am an advocate of. That woman had her smarts on.
I agree wholeheartedly! If an agreement or any other contract was actually made, then both parties are bound to stick by it. But merely saying "I'll support you after I get out of school if you will support me while I'm going to school" is not an agreement, it's a bunch of words anyone can say and can change their mind later. Both sexes have a right to change their mind, but not if it's an agreement that is spelled out, signed, but not even notarized.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,888 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
The point is that no one put a gun to the housewives' heads and said, "Make yourself completely unable to fend for yourself should your marriage go awry."
Couples makes choices together. In the case of the 'agreement,' there was a spelled out agreement, which is what I am an advocate of. That woman had her smarts on.
I asked my ex repeatedly over a 17 year marriage to help out financially. We didn't argue about it because I didn't press it, but I did ask. It was her choice, not mine not even ours for her to be a SAHM.
When she finally did decide to go back to school I was excited and supportive putting my own education on hold to help out with the kids and take a higher paying job with a 120 mile round trip commute.
Stupid me - somewere during the college experience she decided to jettison me and our family so I am a single father today.
I have a question about this aspect of your post. If SHE decided to dissolve the agreement after 30 years and leave the relationship, possibly even cheated, should she still get alimony? That is the current state of affairs, so regardless of who chooses to leave or cheat, the higher earning spouse is still the one who loses in the end.
In my opinion, no, she shouldn't. I don't know if that is the "current state of affairs"--she likely would be entitled to a portion of property gained during marriage, but I don't know if she would get alimony.
As someone else pointed out, it might depend on who has the better lawyer, though!
The point is that no one put a gun to the housewives' heads and said, "Make yourself completely unable to fend for yourself should your marriage go awry."
Couples makes choices together. In the case of the 'agreement,' there was a spelled out agreement, which is what I am an advocate of. That woman had her smarts on.
No, and I think we'll probably see less and less of the alimony scenario as time goes by. Thirty years ago, though, society was such that a lot of women were still getting married with no thought of preparing themselves for a future where they would have to support themselves.
I think we'll see more of the scenario where a woman who was a SAHM gets some sort of temporary support to give her a chance to get on her feet. A friend of mine had this--her husband persuaded her to quit her job, then when they got divorced, he had to pay a certain amount for the next four years in order to enable her to get an education and get back into the workforce, and then the payments were reduced to child support only. She didn't do anything about bettering herself during those years and is now out of work and in danger of losing her house because she doesn't have marketable skills. I hate to see her lose her house, but I don't have that much sympathy. She blew it.
The scenario in your last paragraph happened only because one lawyer was better than the other. If the doctor would have disputed her claim of an "agreement" that decision probably wouldn't have been made. We will never know, and it doesn't matter. What matters is right and wrong. If you would have had to pay your ex husband support, you would have thought that was wrong, and I would have to agree. As far as my age goes, I'm older than you, I know that without asking your age. No matter how you try to justify your feelings, your mind is still screwed up, but that is my opinion only. I have been wrong before, but not this time.
Thanks for your opinion, your insults affect me so deeply. Glad I could serve as the recipient of your nastiness.
Um, the doctor DID dispute her claim of an agreement. That's why it went to court.
Getting back to cases like Ceece's--what would be YOUR solution? Have the woman end up on homeless or on welfare because her husband just decided one fine day after 30 years that he needed to have a younger chick?
Personally, i have a problem with the amounts. While i think that a father should be held accountable for making sure that their children are OK financially, i think $8000 or $20000 a month is overdoing it.
With Darren McFadden's situation, that $8k a month could convince a lot of women to find a NFL or other pro player to have a baby with. I've heard of some women taking fertility pills prior to sleeping with athletes hoping to have a child and a meal ticket. Think about it, McFadden's baby mama gets $96k every year for 18 years to do nothing. How will this not encourage a woman to try to get an athletes baby?
Personally, i think that the amount of child support or alimony should be that while a child enjoys a decent life a mother is still responsible for making a living if she is physically and mentally able to. This would encpourage self-reliance.
What do ya'll think? Cap child support and alimony?
I haven't heard of Russell Simmons having a problem with the amount he pays to support his daughters. If any celebrity or wealthy person doesn't want to pay child support for their children they either shouldn't have them at all, maintain full custody, or stay married to the mother.
I think you are operating on quite the fallacious premise(s), which naturally leads you to the wrong conclusion based on that false premise.
You frame the issue in the context of the child sharing in much of the rewards of the parent(s) while they are married, and then draw the conclusion that once the parents divorce, the child should be afforded the same lifestyle operating on the assumption that: (a) the child had a luxurious upbringing to begin with, simply because the parent was well-to-do, and (b) your argument also seems to directly imply in its chain of logic that the child had some "Right" to share in the parents wealth to begin with.
For starters, so far as I am aware, (b) has almost no basis in law whatsoever. That pretty much collapses the entire line of reasoning right there. Under current law in every state in this country (if not also the general trend worldwide), the child in no way has some mythical Right to share in the wealth of the parents. Child negligence law sets a rather low bar indeed, and the parents only obligation is the give a child some bare minimums and comforts bordering on a slightly above subsistence level. You have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them to the extent you can such that it does not appear to the bureaucratic bean counter at child protective services that a bona fide case of neglect exists. You can practically keep your child living in a crummy fleabag motel room with a nanny for duration of the kids childhood from birth to teenage years, while the parents live it up in the mansion and party luxuriously every day. Though that might represent the more extreme case which courts might be sympathetic to entertaining a case of emotional neglect [if the parents don't visit the fleabag motel quite often enough], the court absolutely won't entertain the case in th capacity of considering that the child is being financially deprived of the parents affluence, simply because no such Right exists in this country, or probably any other country. So generally, the court can't do jack squat about it. So long as the conditions the child is kept at are at the very low threshold of basic care, the parents can live it up and keep their kid in squalor, so long as the kids needs are met, and so long as their is some semblance of emotional care on the parents part.
As for (a), that is merely logically deficient on the grounds that some people in the thread are taking that as an assumed fact which is universal, when very well it may not be the case at all. You can't base a legal rule off of an assumption that something is universally true, when in fact it's not. Meaning, while most affluent parents probably share in the wealth with their child, to some extent, that may not always be the case. And when its not the case, then the justification for the conclusion once again collapses, because it was specifically premised on the assumption that the kid did share in the wealth, and so then should continue to live a lifestyle equal to one or both parents, even after the divorce (which again, is only a conditional, not a universal fact).
for (B) the child does have the right to share in the wealth. That is why courts of law take the parents income and order a specified percentage of said income to go toward child support. If what you said was correct, they would just make it a specified dollar amount across the board to cover basic living expenses. One parent living it up while the kid lives like scum is what could happen if the rich parent wasn't forced to give up their precious money.
And for (A), no one said every parent actually uses their riches on their kids. They should, but we all know some parents are peices of trash who would rather smoke crack than provide for their kids. But the fact that some parents don't use their money on their kids doesn't suddenly mean no one should be expected to use their money on their kids. The child support is ordered because it is expected to be used to provide for the child.
In my opinion, no, she shouldn't. I don't know if that is the "current state of affairs"--she likely would be entitled to a portion of property gained during marriage, but I don't know if she would get alimony.
As someone else pointed out, it might depend on who has the better lawyer, though!
Thanks, I'm glad you feel that a person who chooses to breakup the marriage shouldn't get alimony, We definitely agree there. I would only be for short term alimony if there was some type of proven abuse to give the stay at home spouse time to get back on his/her feet. 2 years for a trade or associates degree is enough.
Yes, a cheating, stay at home spouse would get alimony, the loophole lies in the term "no fault".
I absolutely agree there should be caps but not in regards to athletes and/or other extremely wealthy people, but for regular joes. The courts are way out of balance and the contributions of men to their families is considered strictly monetary which is ridiculous.
Our courts recklessly reduce men to paychecks which is dehumanizing and humiliating. Men's greatest contribution to their children is their presence, protection and influence.
(I am a divorced single father with primary custody of my 13 yr old twin daughters. I am not alone but part of a growing trend of men bucking the arbitrary and imbalanced family court system - prenups should be standard and provide not just for men's financial well being but protection from being blackmailed by ex's who hold their children hostage for financial gain)
Courts didn't reduce men to paychecks, men did that to themselves. They don't want to spendtime with their kids, influence them or protect them, they want to hurry up and find the next piece of a$$. (and of course that is a generalization, not every man.)
I don't think that regular joes should have so much money taken that they don't have enough to live on. But I'm talking strictly necessities, not 40 in plasma TV's, and weekends spent in the bar.
WRONG. IF a man was paying 8,000 in child support a month, and he all of a sudden was to lose that job, regardless of how he lost it the courts dictate that you had the ability to make that much so that means you should be able to acheive that amount in your pursuit of employment. I believe that this is wrong and that his case should be looked at from a realistic standpoint. Unfortunatly the courts don,t work like that.
Obviously some parents, lawyers and judges are corrupt, but during the pursuit of emplyment, your child support is based on minimum wage. Everyone is expected to make at least that. But then some people are to good to work at minimum wage jobs and would rather stay unemployed while they search for the perfect job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
